Tweet
I think we've wrangled about all we're going to on this point. We have pretty much each acknowledge that our reasoning here is theologically based, rather than textually based. No need to quibble of minor details.
Unfortunately I have to agree with you that this discussion will not lead us any further.
Other gods that they worship, certainly. Since Scripture itself refers to some of God's servants as being gods, the commandment does not mean that there can be no being who are called gods.
The fact that there are other gods doesn't mean we can't anything but "having other gods."
"The God of me" or "My God" is a phrase that morely says that Thomas has Jesus as his god.
It goes beyond plain recognizing, in which case "ho theos" would have done. ("This God")
If Thomas says "the God of me" he either goes against the first commandment or he "has" just One God.
Either "before me" or "in my presence" still implies that this commandment is about the primacy and exclusivity of worship, not exclusivity of category.
Exclusivity in general. It does not say "Thou shall not worship other gods before me"
For sure it means "exclusivity in category" as well.
Otherwise it would have said "Thou shall have no equal gods before me"
Jesus occupies many positions, including at the right hand of God, but is never "before Him" (in a place of greater promience), so there is no concern about violating the first commandment.
I already made clear that "before" does not mean "in a place of greater promience".
Yes, if you take just those for properties of the five, Jesus is not unique.
The five properties:
1. First
2. Last
3. Living One
4. Died
5. Made alive
1,2,4 and 5 are any Christian. However, humans are not the among the "living ones", because we are mortal. Take a good look at "zao" and how it is used for #3 and #5, it means two different things.
The five properties:
1. First
2. Last
3. Living One
4. Died
5. Made alive
1,2,4 and 5 are any Christian. However, humans are not the among the "living ones", because we are mortal. Take a good look at "zao" and how it is used for #3 and #5, it means two different things.
If you agree with me that #3,#4 and #5 are not unique,
how can you still claim that #1 and #2 do not stand alone, but are to be applied at #3, #4 and #5?
If you do apply them anyway, #3,#4 and #5 have to be unique titles of Jesus again, how could he otherwise be either the first and the last.
I have already supplied them. When you say "impossible", that implies my argument that Jesus is the first and last immortal to be killed and resurrected does not agree with the text. It does agree with the text.
Again, I'm not trying to say your interpretaion is plainly wrong. I'm just pointing out that there are alternate ways of understanding this text.
Again, I'm not trying to say your interpretaion is plainly wrong. I'm just pointing out that there are alternate ways of understanding this text.
But I try to say that those interpretations are wrong.
Perhaps instead of filling in the blank for ourselves, we can allow Scripture to do so.
Is 44: 5-7 (all quotes NASB, courtesy of Bible Gateway):
This one will say, 'I am the LORD'S';
And that one will call on the name of Jacob;
And another will write on his hand, 'Belonging to the LORD,'
And will name Israel's name with honor.
"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
'I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God besides Me.
'Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it;
Yes, let him recount it to Me in order,
From the time that I established the ancient nation.
And let them declare to them the things that are coming
And the events that are going to take place.
Here, He is the First and the Last upon whom His followers will call.
Is 44: 5-7 (all quotes NASB, courtesy of Bible Gateway):
This one will say, 'I am the LORD'S';
And that one will call on the name of Jacob;
And another will write on his hand, 'Belonging to the LORD,'
And will name Israel's name with honor.
"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
'I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God besides Me.
'Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it;
Yes, let him recount it to Me in order,
From the time that I established the ancient nation.
And let them declare to them the things that are coming
And the events that are going to take place.
Here, He is the First and the Last upon whom His followers will call.
If it applies to anything, it applies to the line after it, which reads "There is no other god besides me"
How can God Jehova be the only god that's the first and the last, while Jesus is another god who's the first and the last?
Or, if there's no other God besides God Jehova, how can Jesus be God as well?
if theos is used it's applied on:
- Jesus (Jesus is God)
- Jehova (Jehova is God)
- idols (false gods, thus in fact not-gods) (plural)
- humans (in the sence of divinity, divine beings) (plural)
Rev 22:12-13:
Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
In the position of rendering to every man according to what he has done, Jesus is indeed First and Last.
Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
In the position of rendering to every man according to what he has done, Jesus is indeed First and Last.
Do you say that Jesus is "The Alpha and the Omega who renders every man according to what he has done" as well?
or Jesus is "The beginning and the end who renders every man according to what he has done"
I think you agree with me that "The alpha and the omega" is a title, Jesus gives to himself. I think you will say so about Jesus being "The beginning and the end"
Why do you take the 2nd phrase and use it differently than the other 2? You need a good clarification to do that! If 3 descriptions are given, you cannot just take the 2nd description and apply it to something said earlier, while you keep the 1st and the 3rd description in place, and declare them to be titles.
All I see is 3 titles Jesus gives to himself.
There is no contextual need for Jesus to declare others who might to be mistoken to render people, so Jesus has to declare his uniqueness.
Why should Jesus not say "He's unique in rendering"
But why does he chose to use these titles that have been used by God Jehova earlier in the book?
The fact that "First and Last" does not stand alone, but comes with "Alpha and Omega" and "The beginning and the end"
I will grant you that in Rev. 1:8, the phrase hangs by itself, without qualification. I haven’t seen this in any other location.
which cannot be explained different than that "The First and The Last" is a title in Rev. 1:8.
While the titles/descriptions are not actually the same, the purpose of the similarity of the titles is to emphasize that Jesus is serving as the vassal of the Almighty.
Sharing titles morely means that both beings are equal, or ones to be equal. If the king dies, the son of the king will be equal to the position of the king.
Of course God will never die, but a prince is certainly not a servant of the king. It's the future king. The king to come. But even in this case of such a close equal position both do not share the same title. One shares the title "King" while another shares the title "Prince".
If the purpose of titling Jesus like God Jehova was to make clear that Jesus is God's servant, other words could have been used better, as being used for other servants of God Jehova. Why not prophet? Archangel? "Most Divine Servant of God Jehova"
Besides that, servants of God Jehova never speak on behalf of themselves. They always start their message with "So says the Lord......"
Jesus does not do that.
He morely speaks the same way of God Jehova, and ends His speach with "I am the Alpha and the Omega..." again alike his Father.
You need very strong evidence to claim that this sharing of titles means to make clear that Jesus is a servant of God Jehova.
The Bible says, in many ways and places, that the Father does give up the title to the Son, with the expectation of it being returned to the Father.
Can you quote such a phrase, so we can talk about it?
CyberShy: If Jesus is claiming to be "The beginning" and "The ending" he cannot be that while his Father, who begotted him, is that as well. Either both are the beginning, or one of them is the beginning, or they are one being, two persons.
One_Brow: Here you have two beings from beyond time, one having been begotten from the other. They are both from the beginning (one as a self-aware being, the other as a yet-to-be-begotten part of the self-aware being), and now two beings.
You say they are both "from the beginning" but both God and Jesus claim to be "the beginning"
First of all, we don't even have the definitive "ho" preceding "theos" here, so I don't see why you assume the "theos" of this verse is Yahowah
because it says "who is over all, God blessed for ever."
There can be only one "God, (..) blessed for ever"
While they also equate “theos” to “God”, the point that Jesus is “theos” to all creation, as well as forever blessed, is central to JW theology, not in opposition to it.
Which goes straight into against the first commandment.
If God Jehova says "There is no other god besides me" he didn't add "Besides Jesus Christ who is god to all creation, blessed forever"
----------
It seems like this discussion is more and more fixating to two items:
1. are there other, less important, gods but God Jehova, besides divine beings.
2. do Jesus and God share unique titles while still being two persons.
the latter still fits with the trinity teachings.
Comment